Back
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, DELHI
Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.N. Mittal, President;
Sh. B.L. Anand, Member; Dr. (Mrs.) Avtar Pennathur, Member.
S. KUMAR—Appellant
versus
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR AIR INDIA—Respondent
Case No. A-97/90—Decided on 3.1.1991
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Sh. S. Kumar in person.
For the Respondent:Sh. Ajay Kapoor, Advocate.
The provisions of the Limitation Act apply to proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act.
Headnote:
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT - LIMITATION - SECTION 2(1)(g) - CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT - EXCESS BAGGAGE - SECTION 2(1)(g) - CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT - PIECE CONCEPT OF BAGGAGE - SECTION 2(1)(g) - CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT - WEIGHT CONCEPT OF BAGGAGE - SECTION 2(1)(g) - CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT - BREAKING JOURNEY - SECTION 2(1)(g) - CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT - DUTY OF AIRLINE TO INFORM PASSENGER ABOUT CHANGE IN BAGGAGE RULES - SECTION 2(1)(g) - CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT - RIGHT OF PASSENGER TO REMOVE EXCESS BAGGAGE AND CARRY IT AS HAND BAGGAGE - SECTION 2(1)(g) - CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT - SUMMARY - The appellant, a consumer, filed a complaint against Air India for charging him £100 for excess baggage on his return journey from London to Delhi. The appellant argued that the piece concept of baggage was applicable as provided for in his ticket and not the weight concept. He also contended that the excess charge collected by Air India at the airport was contrary to the terms and conditions of the ticket issued to him. The District Forum dismissed the complaint, holding that the appellant was not entitled to a refund of the £100 paid towards excess baggage. The appellant appealed to the State Commission, which upheld the order of the District Forum. The appellant then appealed to the National Commission.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a consumer, filed a complaint against Air India for charging him £100 for excess baggage on his return journey from London to Delhi. The appellant argued that the piece concept of baggage was applicable as provided for in his ticket and not the weight concept. He also contended that the excess charge collected by Air India at the airport was contrary to the terms and conditions of the ticket issued to him. The District Forum dismissed the complaint, holding that the appellant was not entitled to a refund of the £100 paid towards excess baggage. The appellant appealed to the State Commission, which upheld the order of the District Forum. The appellant then appealed to the National Commission.
Finding of the Court:
The National Commission held that the appellant's claim was barred by limitation as it was filed more than four years after the cause of action arose. The National Commission also held that the appellant was not entitled to a refund of the £100 paid towards excess baggage as he had broken his journey in London and thus disentitled himself from drawing the benefit of the piece system of baggage.
Issues: 1. Whether the appellant's claim was barred by limitation? 2. Whether the appellant was entitled to a refund of the £100 paid towards excess baggage?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The National Commission held that the appellant's claim was barred by limitation as it was filed more than four years after the cause of action arose. The National Commission relied on the provisions of the Limitation Act, which apply to proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act. 2. The National Commission held that the appellant was not entitled to a refund of the £100 paid towards excess baggage as he had broken his journey in London and thus disentitled himself from drawing the benefit of the piece system of baggage. The National Commission relied on the Baggage Rules, which clearly state that the piece concept of baggage is applicable only for direct journeys and that the weight concept becomes applicable when a passenger breaks his journey.
Final Decision: The National Commission rejected the appeal with no order as to costs.
Dr. (Mrs.) Avtar Pennathur, Member— This appeal has been filed against the order dated 30.5.90 of the District Forum in case No. 1732/89, S. Kumar, President Society for Civic Rights v. Managing Director, Air India. The District Forum had dismissed the complaint and held the view that the complainant was not entitled to refund of £100, paid towards excess baggage for journey from London to Delhi.
2. The case of the appellant, complainant in the District Forum, is that the complainant is President of Society of Civic Rights which is recognised as a “Registered Consumer Association” by the Department of Company Affairs, Government of India, and he travelled to Canada on ticket No. 3462907165 issued on 24.6.85 by Air Canada for Canadian dollors 1507 for his journey from Delhi to Charlotte Town, Canada and back. The ticket issued by Air Canada provided piece concept of baggage throughout the journey both ways. This meant that the complainant could carry two pieces of baggage of set dimensions irrespective of weight. The ticket also provided that the complainant would travel on Air India between London and Delhi on his return journey. The complainant commenced his journey from Delhi on 13.7.85 for Canada. His return journey from Canada started on 28.7.85. He broke his journey at London for a few days and returned from London by Air India. When the complainant came to the airport to catch his flight for Delhi on 31.7.85 the checking staff of Air India found that he had excess baggage of 10 kg and he had to pay £100 towards this baggage. He was issued an excess baggage ticket No. 098 4510336634 dated 31.7.85. The complainant argued with the duty staff of Air India at the airport that into case the piece concept of baggage was applicable as provided for in his ticket and not the weight concept. He also contended that the excess charge collected by Air India at the airport was contrary to the terms and conditions of the ticket issued to him. He further averred that the terms and conditions of his ticket could not be altered to his disadvantage and the airline was bound to give due notice to him before doing so. He also contended that he was given no opportunity to lighten his load and to remove some articles of his excess baggage from suitcases and carry it as hand baggage. He further stated that while argument were going on, the check-in-staff of Air India pressed the button of the conveyer belt and pushed ahead the baggage of the appellant.
3. The appellant had claimed a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- on account of loss and injury suffered by him, a refund of £100 which he had to pay on account of excess baggage and interest on this amount. He had contended that he faced a lot of humiliation as he had to borrow £100 from a friend at the airport in order to pay for the excess baggage.
4. The respondent, Air India, had contended that the complaint was barred by limitation as the cause of action arose on 31.7.85 when Mr. S. Kumar, the appellant travelled from London to Delhi. He lodged a complaint on 15.11.89, after a lapse of four years and four months.
5. Arguments were heard simultaneously on the question of limitation and on merits, We have persued the documents placed on the file and the baggage rules. The appellant argued that the Law of Limitation does not apply to the cases handled under the Consumer Protection Act, as the later is a welfare legislation. We cannot persuade ourselves to accept the appellant’s contention. We have already held in Prabhat Bag Factory v. United India Ins. Company. C. No. 32/90 decided on 13.11.90 that the provisions of Limitation Act are applicable to the proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act.
6. The complaint has been filed after more than four years and prima-facie it is not within the limitation. The appellant has not been able to convince us that according to the provisions of the Limitation Act it is within the time. He referred to a decision of the National Commission in M/s Special Machi
